decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Correction: the JVM is not suitable for smartphones | 503 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Correction: the JVM is not suitable for smartphones
Authored by: clemenstimpler on Saturday, April 21 2012 @ 09:00 PM EDT
And the kind, but firm hand you use in regulating Groklaw is appreciated by its
readers.

:)

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Correction: the JVM is not suitable for smartphones
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 21 2012 @ 09:04 PM EDT
I don't work for Oracle. I'm a sometimes android developer. I did own a tiny
amount of stock in booth Google and Oracle, but own neither at the moment.

I happen to think that to have Oracle's unreasonable view of API
copyrightability prevail would be disastrous across the industry - really,
Android would be in less trouble than a lot of other projects. But that doesn't
mean that everything that has been posted in opposition to them is factually
accurate. In particular, there seems to be some misunderstanding from
"jbb" about what Dalvik is, and some severe overstatements of what the
consequences of using GPL rather than apache licensed userspace components would
be. That's not an argument that Dalvik is a bad idea, or that Google's decision
to go with an apache licensed userspace was wrong - it's just about setting
setting straight the facts surrounding those decisions.

I'm not _intentionally_ doing anything to mask my IP address, though my ISP may
well be using some NAT or similar scheme which has that affect.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Correction: the JVM is not suitable for smartphones
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, April 22 2012 @ 04:04 AM EDT
Author of the above comment did not start this thread - I did.
Now, I do not work for Oracle, neither do I work at Google. I
have never worked at either of these companies and hopefully
never will.

My point is that Oracle isn't trying to go after all implementers of open APIs.
They're trying to specifically nail
Google. If they win this case they may be far-reaching
consequences, but Oracle is simply using the API copyright as a
legal tool, a tactic, to try and nail Google for something that
Oracle believes (and I do, too) of very questionable ethics.

Google could have licensed Java. They say Sun were dragging
their feet - fine; they could have built their own new platform.
They chose not to, and most of their decisions of what to re-
implement came not from a technical perspective but from a legal
one. They were thinking: if we re-implement this and that bit,
would that be enough to circumvent Java's license? It was
perfectly clear (because it was explicitly stated) that Sun did
everything in its power to prevent others from implementing Java
on mobile devices. That's exactly what Google did, and they
didn't even re-implement Java! They told developers: you can use
all your existing Java tools, existing compilers and whatnot.
And when you're done compiling your software just run it through
our conversion program that would bring it over to our platform.
Is this lawful? Maybe. But it's certainly a nasty business
trick. So now Oracle is trying to do a courtroom trick. That's
all.

So the lesson is that Oracle will not go after you if you're
copying their APIs. They will go after you if you implement Java
on a mobile device.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )